imatfaal

Less of the "we" - some bits of Europe have requirements to carry ID other parts do not. The UK and other parts of Europe have not all reached the state in which ID (or proof of same) can be demanded a propos of nothing. Proof can be requested a PC investigating a crime / in furtherance of his duties who is not sure the ID given is valid can take measures to assure himself; from a request for proof to detention until certain if contemplating charging for an offence.

! Moderator Note Kaspar Orange Time for you to provide detail and maths as per the guidelines.

Who is Freddy Mercury? I am pretty sure the same question could be asked about Freddie Mercury - but it would be similarly worthless as hinted at above. If we are going to have a debate on such a "blue touch paper" subject could we at least start with a sensible question, which is correct in its details, and does not involve potentially divisive celebrity figures past or present.

Rotational Kinetic energy does not seem so simple [latex]KE = \frac{1}{2}m.v^2[/latex] [latex]RKE=I. \omega^2[/latex] With I equalling approximating point mass I guess in this case [latex]RKE = m.r^2 \omega^2[/latex] But of course [latex] v = \omega. r [/latex] Which just leaves a factor of 2 which I seem to have lost

Rob makes a great point. ! Moderator Note I am going to call a halt to discussion of ANY phenomena that are impossible to independently and objectively verify. To clarify this point - I can imagine (in fact I have written in this thread) ways in which the psi-wheel experiment could be improved to a status that would start"to get scientists attention if not agreement. There is NO way that this could happen to a "I am thinking of a word" and someone says it out loud; that would always rely on the subject's memory and perception and is thus quintessentially subjective. Thus the psi-wheel is acceptable as long as we are moving towards a repeatable and verifiable experiment - BUT the "I think of a word thing" is completely unacceptable. Do not bring it up in this thread - or open others to discuss it.

I learnt about dimensional analysis here - shows how lacking my formal science education was - so I take a perverse pleasure in looking at almost every equation that displays on my screen and just checking. My poor timing I am afraid

[latex] F_g = (1-\frac{HR}{c}) (\frac{-G M1m2}{R^2})[/latex] I am sure we agree that [latex] F_g = (\frac{-G M1m2}{R^2})[/latex] Is dimensionally correct - it is standard Newtonian Gravity (by the way I would also have a minus as it is the standard representation when no unit radial vector is present) and this [latex] (1-\frac{HR}{c})[/latex] is surely dimensionless [latex] (1-\frac{[s^{-1}][m]}{[m][s^{-1}]})[/latex] The idea looks like nonsense to me - but your comment was just raising a blue rag to a pedant

! Moderator Note thread locked. Next time you open a thread that is just guesswork we will consider suspension or you being placed in the moderator approval queue. I really recommend reading the rules and guidelines for posting in this forum - they are stickied at the top of the forum.

If what I have read is correct - and much more importantly correctly remembered and understood - then the LHC is at the sort of energies that are not yet ruled out. I read an article about the time lag between prediction and discovery at the time of the LHC getting the Higgs. And the lead time between theory and finding it is increasing at an increasing rate - between firm prediction and discovery now seems to be measured in decades; but we don't even have the firm prediction yet for the monopole. Maybe this time the path will be shortened or reversed

It also works on the expected decay time of short-lived particles - from the observer's frame they exist for a longer time before decaying if they are moving relative to the observer than if they are still with respect to the observer (as also longer than we would expect from our predictions if we do not allow for time dilation thru special relativity)

Scotusblog / Goldstein is superb and very unlikely to be wrong - I remember getting my supervisor in Public International Law hooked on that blog when we were researching the Guantanamo cases.

So are others - with some already threatening not a single Obama appointment will be ratified. He was out quail hunting yesterday - Dick Cheney does have an alibi I guess. Another Liberal Appointment and court was distinctly unlikely to revisit some crucial cases. Which is why Senate Republicans are already drawing battle lines. I would like Obama to in his coolest manner (which let's face he is cooler than any world leader since I don't know when) and with a wide grin go "Yeah - I ain't got no problem with Hillary or Bernie appointing someone"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35571868 News coming in that Scalia has died http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79

or less hopefully, I guess at one point, the last...

! Moderator Note Please provide a summary here - Forum rules dictate that members must be able to participate without going off site. Also moved to speculations. If when you post more details you can convince then maybe we can move back - however I find that unlikely

"If you do the same with y=x^5+ x^7 you will see what the difference is." My problem was that I was doing it with y=x^7 + x^5 - brain fart. Your posts now make perfect sense once I have read it properly

Not sure you are right there. Firstly - what is political campaigning other than propaganda with makeup on? Secondly Polling one candidate in primaries against another is notoriously unreliable - it asks a make believe question with too many "ifs and ands". Finally - Hillary has raised over 50 million in individual donations aside from PACs. You are obviously a fan of Bernie - as am I. And I agree with your comments on his politics. It is moving opinion with democrats - but it is undecided and the lazy who the Democrat needs to mobilize. The Democratic candidate wins when lots of people vote - when they stay at home the Republican wins; Bernie will energize some - but will he get those in states where he would need to win against a challenge

I think what I was trying to counter with was the point that the discovery of magnetic monopoles would be a new elementary particle - but unlike Higg's boson final discovery we have no real idea about what the new particle is like. I read that we had ruled out the "existence space" under 5-600 GeV - that is 4 times the mass of the Higg's so damn close to beyond our ability to probe. There isn't a widely accepted group of properties backedup in theory for a yet undiscovered particle - we knew so much about the Higg's the only problem was we hadn't got proof. My understanding is that the only things that people agree about the magnetic monopole is that we haven't found one and that divB=0 will be broken for this particle (this is one of maxwell's equations (called gauss' law of magnetism) upon which relativity and most modern physics is based!)

With the amount of energy those waves gave off I think we can be pretty glad we weren't observing up close and personal But you are dead right - gravity is realm of the macroscopic and cosmologically huge. I suppose with a working theory of quantum gravity we might one day be able to talk about things like this but until then any emprical results would be hugely blotted out by a heartbeat of a mouse on another continent

Can you not just flip it across the line y=x? There is only one point of inflexion (there is only one real solution to dy/dx - and the value of d2y/dx2 is zero) so that line would also be 1:1

It doesn't. It is further experimental proof of the validity of General Relativity

An 8k sphere - well it is ambitious but seeing the trouble we had getting the LHC funded I reckoned that will a No for the foreseeable future

! Moderator Note Please keep personal ideas like this in the Speculations forum. Take a moment to read the rules of this specific forum - you are gonna need to defend your idea otherwise it gets locked. First point is Mordreds question regarding uncharged asteroids. Soapboxing and continued assertion will result in a locked thread.

! Moderator Note This is a Science News Post with information regarding a very important experiment and an interesting result. It will not be tolerated for members to use it as a launch-pad for hijacks. Rob - you have been a member for long enough to realise that your hijack is completely against the rules; not only is it in the wrong forum, it is an argument from incredulity, and flies in the face of the physics which is accepted by the scientific mainstream and which is constantly re-enforced by the daily utility and accuracy of things such as GPS. I have split your hijack off to Speculations - but unless there is some meat on the bones of the argument from lack of understanding very soon it will be locked.

! Moderator Note OK - Sonjouten05. Provide some of this evidence - if the next post does not contain something that we can view as potential evidence (assertion is never evidence , nor is some guys in russia say so, nor is grasping at unexplained and unwitnessed phenomena) then the thread will be locked. The evidence does not need to be irrefutable - but it must be able to be considered as potential evidence. This is a science forum not a makestuffup forum